15 days for Biancone

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ELA

I agree. Question though -- for what drugs? Class 1? 3? I think a graduated scale is needed without quuestion, and for more harsh violations, there should be a X strikes and you get a year. More harsh, 5 or 10 years. For the most severe violations -- lifetime could be applicable.

But it needs to be clear cut. I don't want contamination issues coming into play, sabotage, etc. There will always be exceptions.

Eric

well, since certain substances get more days, or a harsher punishment then others, maybe they would have a limit set...when you limit out, you're out. one major, a couple of minors....there absolutely should be a limit. it shouldn't be a constant hand out of positives, a fine, a slap, a short suspension that is really a vacation. it's ridiculous. what's more ridiculous imo are the deep-pocketed owners who don't care what a trainer does, as long as they get their mug in the winners circle picture.

[phystech]

Originally Posted by Danzig

what's more ridiculous imo are the deep-pocketed owners who don't care what a trainer does, as long as they get their mug in the winners circle picture.

You are now an owner - do you know everything your trainer does?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by phystech

You are now an owner - do you know everything your trainer does?

nope.

but it's hard not to know (for example) about steve asmussens double digit positives, as well as the fines and suspensions. biancone is banned from hong kong, just got days, and then a fine...so why hire either of them? positives, suspensions and fines are a matter of public record. why should chronic offenders be tolerated? if an owner doesn't care, or isn't interested in due diligence, then i think it is in the sports best interests to tell certain individuals that their services are no longer desired. that racetracks will no longer open their doors to these folks.
do you remember a few years ago, an owner named gill was denied stall space? very simple remedy, and one that should be employed more often.

[phystech]

Originally Posted by Danzig

nope.


do you remember a few years ago, an owner named gill was denied stall space? very simple remedy, and one that should be employed more often.

I remember Mr. Gill all too well. I competed against him for over 5 years in the mid-Atlantic. Actually, denying Gill stall space didn't matter beacuse he went out and bought a farm with a track and a couple barns, and then he thumbed his nose at track officials. In the end, little guys like me were hurt by the rules some tracks enforced to try to hurt Gill.

Denying stalls didn't do a thing.....

I think anyone that follows the game knows about the well publicized trainers with positives for varying things. But a lot of guys flying under the radar can do the same things the Asmussens, Biancones, etc do. Just because they aren't getting the ink doesn't mean their owners can be any more aware of what they are doing than the big name owners that employ name trainers.

My pure guess is that 90% of owners out there would only have a clue about what their trainer might be doing, if/when their trainer gets caught.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by phystech

My pure guess is that 90% of owners out there would only have a clue about what their trainer might be doing, if/when their trainer gets caught.

I tend to agree with you on this one, but I suspect that, if there was some sort of "owner responsibility" rule (I'm not advocating one - I'd like to start with giving meaningful penalties and ending the sham suspensions, and see how those measures work first), owners would probably start making it their business to find out what their trainer might be doing - and ensuring that their stable doesn't get sent to the "penalty box". To those that don't care, the old adage that "if you play with fire, you might get burned" will probably apply.

[Danzig]

well, yeah, it stands to reason that no one would know what anyone was doing til they got caught. my bone of contention is that it's business as usual after they get caught. repeatedly. slap, don't do it again, and back to work. and invariably, back to the same stuff they were doing before. why in the world would it be acceptable for a trainer to have over 20 positives? not 2 or 3 over a period of years, but almost two dozen. that's outrageous.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I tend to agree with you on this one, but I suspect that, if there was some sort of "owner responsibility" rule (I'm not advocating one - I'd like to start with giving meaningful penalties and ending the sham suspensions, and see how those measures work first), owners would probably start making it their business to find out what their trainer might be doing - and ensuring that their stable doesn't get sent to the "penalty box". To those that don't care, the old adage that "if you play with fire, you might get burned" will probably apply.

I agree, and that's happening today. Delaware has made some progressive steps in this direction regarding "owner responsibility"; however, I agree with you and believe you are correct that meaningful penalties are needed, ones that make an impact. Delaware has done this and has added the owner aspect as well.

Eric

[parsixfarms]

Forgive my ignorance (since we only race in NY), but what is Delaware doing?

[ELA]

Originally Posted by phystech

You are now an owner - do you know everything your trainer does?

Excellent point/question. Here is where part of the potential problem begins. I understand that Phipps called for this, and to some extent, this is part of the solution. However, I don't see this being "absolute" so to speak. Are we going to see owners -- big-time owners -- litigating with racing commissions? What about individuals or members of boards? What will the outcome be? The critics and negative voices can say all they want, but there has to be a broad, comprehensive solution.

I don't know the details, but recently in NJ, there was a trainer (and driver) who got something like 10 years, big money fines, etc. First, I could be wrong, but I was told the trainer shipped his stock back to IL and was in business, racing as if nothing happened. That surprised me. Perhaps it was because the NJ case was under appeal or something, but I don't think he could race in NJ. Anyway, time goes on, case goes on, it works its way through the legal system and now -- I believe he is eligible to apply for a NJ license (after about a year, time served, probation, etc.).

Is this what could happen with an owner, but without lost time? Take an owner who is the founder/CEO/Chairman of a Fortune 500 company. He/she gets suspended. Can he sell the horses to his wife? I don't think this is the type of litigation that solves the problem. However, this is part of the solution.

Eric